Reid
Newbie
I have sourced from a dealer two cameras that interest me and I would like advice on which to choose. They are both the same price.
Solida 111 with 2.9 Radionnar and Synchro Compur 1-500 and a Balda Super Baldax with 3.5 Baldanar 1-300 and Proctor SVS. The Solida has no red indicator on the lens bezel so perhaps it is not coated (?) though with a lens serial number of 49xxxxxxx it was produced so long after other similar lenses wihich are definitely coated.I am dealing at arms length with the Dealer and photos show a bluish tint to the lens which would indicate coated.
Both cameras as in very good shape cosmetically although the Balda does show signs of wear on the leatherette covering, not so with the Solida.
The coupled rangefinder of the Balda appeals but it is not a dealbreaker. Both cameras will almost certainly require a mild professional CLA at some stage so is the Compur noticeably more costly to dismantle. My interest in MF is 'slow time' photography with churches, especially interiors and architecture generally, a real interest.
I value quality of construction and sound design in cameras though I know that neither of these even approach an Ikonta or a Voigtlander but those are beyond my price range.
Solida 111 with 2.9 Radionnar and Synchro Compur 1-500 and a Balda Super Baldax with 3.5 Baldanar 1-300 and Proctor SVS. The Solida has no red indicator on the lens bezel so perhaps it is not coated (?) though with a lens serial number of 49xxxxxxx it was produced so long after other similar lenses wihich are definitely coated.I am dealing at arms length with the Dealer and photos show a bluish tint to the lens which would indicate coated.
Both cameras as in very good shape cosmetically although the Balda does show signs of wear on the leatherette covering, not so with the Solida.
The coupled rangefinder of the Balda appeals but it is not a dealbreaker. Both cameras will almost certainly require a mild professional CLA at some stage so is the Compur noticeably more costly to dismantle. My interest in MF is 'slow time' photography with churches, especially interiors and architecture generally, a real interest.
I value quality of construction and sound design in cameras though I know that neither of these even approach an Ikonta or a Voigtlander but those are beyond my price range.
Russell W. Barnes
Well-known
I've had both. But the Franka-Solida IIIE with Radionar f2.9 lens had to go. I was getting a tiny light-leak, and replaced the faded red window with some new stuff, but it wasn't that. Then I worked out that the light leaked on shots I'd taken after I'd had the camera in my hand, in the sun. I suspected it was that the rear door closure on the Franka didn't have as much overlap as that of my Baldixes (Mess-Baldix, Baltar f4.5 75mm lens and Baldix f3.5 Ennagon lens).
Both my Baldixes and the Franka were of equal solid, well-made construction, apart from the suspected light-leak hitherto described. My 1954 Mess-Baldix cost me £36 and takes cracking pics, and I suspect, through diminishing returns, that spending four times as much on a Perkeo or Zeiss Ikon would not yield images of four times the quality.
The Franka was a lovely camera and had embossed on it 'Made in the U. S. Zone', and I was reluctant to let it go, but it had let me down on occasion whereas the Baldixes never have. I have never had my Mess-Baldix CLA'd and the shutter has always been consistent in operation. I had the non-rangefinder Baldix CLA'd to good effect and it wasn't expensive. The reason I prefer my Mess-Baldix to the others is that it has a built-in frame-counter and once I've aligned the first shot, I need never open the red window cover again and try to see the extremely faint frame ident - Fomapan 400 excepted - and just have to wind on. And this allows me to gain a bonus 13th shot!
Both my Baldixes and the Franka were of equal solid, well-made construction, apart from the suspected light-leak hitherto described. My 1954 Mess-Baldix cost me £36 and takes cracking pics, and I suspect, through diminishing returns, that spending four times as much on a Perkeo or Zeiss Ikon would not yield images of four times the quality.
The Franka was a lovely camera and had embossed on it 'Made in the U. S. Zone', and I was reluctant to let it go, but it had let me down on occasion whereas the Baldixes never have. I have never had my Mess-Baldix CLA'd and the shutter has always been consistent in operation. I had the non-rangefinder Baldix CLA'd to good effect and it wasn't expensive. The reason I prefer my Mess-Baldix to the others is that it has a built-in frame-counter and once I've aligned the first shot, I need never open the red window cover again and try to see the extremely faint frame ident - Fomapan 400 excepted - and just have to wind on. And this allows me to gain a bonus 13th shot!
Reid
Newbie
Very informative and comprehensive reply Russell and I have noted your positivity towards the Balda, which is timely as I have already bought the Balda and so far, I am delighted with my choice but I thank you kindly for your time and invaluable assistance.
Russell W. Barnes
Well-known
You're welcome, Reid, and I hope you have as much fun with your Balda as I have with mine! Handy enough to slip into your back-pocket and sturdy enough to hold still for a long exposure. For my long exposures I have a stepped piece of wood I carry around with me, about a couple inches long, an inch wide and steps of maybe 1/8", 1/4", and 1/2" onto which I place the foldy-down leg, and, using my forefinger, press lightly but firmly on the camera platform as I hold the shutter open on a cable release. This way I can rest the camera on the ground, or a wall, and achieve enough elevation to frame my shot, if necessary. The piece of wood takes up less space in my pocket than my little Manfrotto Pixi Mini tripod.
You need to be aware of the limitations of a folding camera, however, if you're not already. These things use a three-element lens, as opposed to the four-element used in more expensive folders, and I find that with the Baltar f4.5 coated lens, f5.6 can be a bit soft, but not unpleasantly so. I also found this with the Schneider-Kreuznach Radionar f2.9 lens on the Franka. The Ennagon f3.5 is a little sharper at wide aperture.
So I tend to keep to f8 and tighter - but not always - and use ISO400 film so I can hand-hold at 1/300 sec. My Mess-Baldix has a Prontor SVS shutter and 1/300 is the fastest it will go. I can confidently hand-hold at 1/100 sec, and, if I support myself satisfactorily and hold my breath, I can hand-hold at 1/50. But slower than that I tend to look for a wall or some street furniture to support the camera.
www.flickr.com/photos/russell_w_b and look for the album 'Cameras: Mess-Baldix'
You need to be aware of the limitations of a folding camera, however, if you're not already. These things use a three-element lens, as opposed to the four-element used in more expensive folders, and I find that with the Baltar f4.5 coated lens, f5.6 can be a bit soft, but not unpleasantly so. I also found this with the Schneider-Kreuznach Radionar f2.9 lens on the Franka. The Ennagon f3.5 is a little sharper at wide aperture.
So I tend to keep to f8 and tighter - but not always - and use ISO400 film so I can hand-hold at 1/300 sec. My Mess-Baldix has a Prontor SVS shutter and 1/300 is the fastest it will go. I can confidently hand-hold at 1/100 sec, and, if I support myself satisfactorily and hold my breath, I can hand-hold at 1/50. But slower than that I tend to look for a wall or some street furniture to support the camera.
www.flickr.com/photos/russell_w_b and look for the album 'Cameras: Mess-Baldix'